Anyone ever hear Michael Robinson talk about his vote for worst CFB fans?

[michnittlion]

It's interesting. It's been 12+ years, so I might be mis-remembering that detail, but it's funny how there's such a correlation regarding the topics to which you'll chime in on to "correct" assertions -- Those who are showing support for Joe Paterno, and those who are throwing shade in the direction of the University of Michigan.

Even if it was first down, those free, unearned, extra 12-15 yards, with such little time on the clock, were massively significant.

One thing that is also interesting -- you "mis-remembered" the detail such that it put Michigan in the worst possible position (4th-and-long) to convert the first down and extend the game.

Besides, as I've shown before --- the call that the play was a complete pass, based on the rulebook as it stood at that time (2005), was not incorrect. (based on the rulebook from 2008 forward, it's an incorrect pass).

 

[joeparules]

It wasn't a bad kick. It was inside the 10 in the corner. Breaston weaved all over the place. Pretty sure others have pointed out an illegal block but I honestly didn't notice it. I don't think the decision to kick it where they did was bad. Just poor outcome.

IIRC, the first kickoff was covered great and had UM pinned inside the 20 before the phantom off-side call. The second kickoff is just as you described and there was one blatant block in the back (I believe it was Dan Connor) and another less obvious block in the back. But you just knew at that point the Referines would do everything in their power to help one of the Big 2. It shows you just how strong the 05 team was that despite playing 11 on 19 the whole time they still almost won it.

 

[NittanyLion15]

Right there with you... PSU class of 2007.

Class of 09 here!

 

[BoulderFish]

One thing that is also interesting -- you "mis-remembered" the detail such that it put Michigan in the worst possible position (4th-and-long) to convert the first down and extend the game.

Mis-remembering it as a fourth down play would have been remembering it in a way that put Michigan in an even worse position. By the way, I was at a wedding and didn't even get to see the game (thankfully, in retrospect). So, my memory of the sequence of events is hearsay and "highlights" they played on TV.

Besides, as I've shown before --- the call that the play was a complete pass, based on the rulebook as it stood at that time (2005), was not incorrect. (based on the rulebook from 2008 forward, it's an incorrect pass).

Oh brother. Here we go again. We understand that the rule was more ambiguous back then (clarified in 2008 so that even moronic refs like those in Michigan in 2005 couldn't get it wrong), but even back then, 19 times out of 20 the refs correctly called that an incomplete pass. So, save it.

 

[Madsol]

One thing that is also interesting -- you "mis-remembered" the detail such that it put Michigan in the worst possible position (4th-and-long) to convert the first down and extend the game.

Besides, as I've shown before --- the call that the play was a complete pass, based on the rulebook as it stood at that time (2005), was not incorrect. (based on the rulebook from 2008 forward, it's an incorrect pass).

Given Michigan's 4th place finish in the B1G East after 2 successive 3rd place finishes and the realization that Harbaugh might just be a stunningly average coach, I guess you have to go back a few years to get your UM jollies. Hang in there michnitt, you're still the leaders and best to us.

 

[pandaczar12]

Besides, as I've shown before --- the call that the play was a complete pass, based on the rulebook as it stood at that time (2005), was not incorrect. (based on the rulebook from 2008 forward, it's an incorrect pass).

What you meant to say was that you "tried", but were unable to convince anyone outside of Ann Arbor.

Interesting wording... "not incorrect".

 

[michnittlion]

Mis-remembering it as a fourth down play would have been remembering it in a way that put Michigan in an even worse position. By the way, I was at a wedding and didn't even get to see the game (thankfully, in retrospect). So, my memory of the sequence of events is hearsay and "highlights" they played on TV.

I was at a wedding too. No excuse for not getting it right.

 

[michnittlion]

Oh brother. Here we go again. We understand that the rule was more ambiguous back then (clarified in 2008 so that even moronic refs like those in Michigan in 2005 couldn't get it wrong), but even back then, 19 times out of 20 the refs correctly called that an incomplete pass. So, save it.

19 out of 20 times? Hmm - that's pretty remarkable that you saw 20 instances of such.

I watch a lot of football --- probably too much --- and I never saw the play prior to our 2005 loss to Michigan, and only saw it one other time in either 2005/2006 after. Fresno State vs Louisiana Tech in early December 2005. Yes, it was ruled incomplete in that game. Which wasn't incorrect either.

What were the other 18 times where this occurred?

 

[michnittlion]

What you meant to say was that you "tried", but were unable to convince anyone outside of Ann Arbor.

Interesting wording... "not incorrect".

Yep --- I worded it "not incorrect" for a reason. It wasn't necessarily right, but it wasn't wrong either.

Ditto when the same play was ruled incomplete in a Fresno State/Louisiana Tech game later that year.

 

[pandaczar12]

Yep --- I worded it "not incorrect" for a reason. It wasn't necessarily right, but it wasn't wrong either.

Ditto when the same play was ruled incomplete in a Fresno State/Louisiana Tech game later that year.

I've seen that same play many many times since, and it's always incomplete.

 

[michnittlion]

I've seen that same play many many times since, and it's always incomplete.

Sure. As I said, from 2008 onwards, the rulebook has been explicit that that is an incomplete pass.

But college football rules can not be implemented on an "ex post facto" basis. The call in 2005 was not incorrect.

 

[pandaczar12]

Sure. As I said, from 2008 onwards, the rulebook has been explicit that that is an incomplete pass.

But college football rules can not be implemented on an "ex post facto" basis. The call in 2005 was not incorrect.

I've seen you try to rationalize what the rule book stated back in 2005. To put it nicely, you are not correct.

 

[michnittlion]

I've seen you try to rationalize what the rule book stated back in 2005. To put it nicely, you are not correct.

The 2005 college football rulebook is at the link below - feel free to point me to the rule that explicitly states that the Avant catch was not a catch. (note how there is no rule 7-3-6-XV as there is in the current rulebook).

http://www.jonheck.com/Articles/ncaa05rules.pdf

 

[pandaczar12]

The 2005 college football rulebook is at the link below - feel free to point me to the rule that explicitly states that the Avant catch was not a catch. (note how there is no rule 7-3-6-XV as there is in the current rulebook).

http://www.jonheck.com/Articles/ncaa05rules.pdf

I reviewed it, and there is nothing in there to that explicitly states that the Avant play was a catch.

 

[michnittlion]

I reviewed it, and there is nothing in there to that explicitly states that the Avant play was a catch.

As I said, the ruling in 2005 was "not incorrect." You have failed to show it was "not" "not incorrect."

 

[pandaczar12]

As I said, the ruling in 2005 was "not incorrect." You have not shown otherwise.

I don't have to. You have the minority opinion, the burden of proof is on you.

The ruling was incorrect, you have not shown otherwise.

 

[michnittlion]

I don't have to. You have the minority opinion, the burden of proof is on you.

The ruling was incorrect, you have not shown otherwise.

As I've said --- The 2005 rulebook was unclear on how such a play should be ruled. It could have been called either way. As DID happen in multiple games in 2005 (a catch in Michigan/PSU, and incomplete in Fresno State/Louisiana Tech).

If you think the 2005 rulebook was clear that it should have been ruled an incomplete pass - you should be able to quote a rule from said rulebook.

Anyway, that 2005 rulebook ambiguity is why they added Rule 7-3-6XV beginning in 2008.

Note how I am quoting an explicit rule there. I'm providing a tangible and explicit fact from the rulebook. I'll quote said rule if you'd like.

Again, though - it being a "non catch" now does not mean the refs were incorrect in 2005. The rulebook cannot anticipate all circumstances, and that's why rules and rule interpretations are added over the years.

However - like the American Constitution, rules can't be applied on an "ex post facto" basis.

 

[pandaczar12]

As I've said --- The 2005 rulebook was unclear on how such a play should be ruled. It could have been called either way. As DID happen in multiple games in 2005 (a catch in Michigan/PSU, and incomplete in Fresno State/Louisiana Tech).

If you think the 2005 rulebook was clear that it should have been ruled an incomplete pass - you should be able to quote a rule from said rulebook.

Anyway, that 2005 rulebook ambiguity is why they added Rule 7-3-6XV beginning in 2008.

Note how I am quoting an explicit rule there. I'm providing a tangible and explicit fact from the rulebook. I'll quote said rule if you'd like.

Again, though - it being a "non catch" now does not mean the refs were incorrect in 2005. The rulebook cannot anticipate all circumstances, and that's why rules and rule interpretations are added over the years.

However - like the American Constitution, rules can't be applied on an "ex post facto" basis.

No, it was clear. And you provided no evidence on how the 2005 rule book was unclear. Just because it was later revised to be even more clear, doesn't mean it was unclear to begin with.

 

[michnittlion]

No, it was clear. And you provided no evidence on how the 2005 rule book was unclear. Just because it was later revised to be even more clear, doesn't mean it was unclear to begin with.

Again --- if the 2005 rulebook WAS clear (as you're arguing) --- you should be able to point out that rule for me.

You have the "positive" in this particular debate - you're arguing the existence of "a clear rule." I'm arguing no such "clear rule" existed (e.g., it was unclear).

 

[pandaczar12]

Again --- if the 2005 rulebook WAS clear (as you're arguing) --- you should be able to point out that rule for me.

You have the "positive" in this particular debate - you're arguing the existence of "a clear rule." I'm arguing no such "clear rule" existed (e.g., it was unclear).

Again --- if the 2005 rulebook WAS unclear (as you're arguing) --- you should be able to point out that rule for me.

 

[michnittlion]

Again --- if the 2005 rulebook WAS unclear (as you're arguing) --- you should be able to point out that rule for me.

Fine. I point to the ENTIRE rulebook. To be more explicit, my stance is:

(1) Every single word and sentence in the 2005 rulebook - none of them definitely say that the Avant play should have been ruled incomplete. None of them.

(2) Similarly - Every single word and sentence in the 2005 rulebook - none of them definitely say that the Avant play should have been ruled complete either. None of them.

Note that (1) and (2) above are unlike the situation from 2008 or after. For 2008 and after, Rule 7-3-6-XV explicitly says that the Avant play (had it happened in 2008 or later) should be ruled incomplete.

 

[N&B4PSU]

The current series is at 8-13. But consider how 2002, and 2005 were blatantly stolen by the referines... and it's 10-11. There were other years with lesser shenanigans... like 2014 with the BS offsides that cost PSU a real chance to win. PSU should lead the series.

you can add 1999 and it's 11-10. while we're at it, somebody fix 1995 osu.

of course, if we're going to be fair, we've got a few we have to give back to a couiple other B1G teams... but i'd gladly trade those losses for deserved wins over osu and um.

 

[L.A.Lion]

That one was definitely a tough pill to swallow. I specifically remember a rotund Michigan “man” looking into the camera and saying “same Michigan and same Penn State”. I work with a native Michiganian (?), and to hear him tell it the all time series is 20-0. I have to remind him that there were stretches where we had winning streaks as well, and that we are on the dawn of another one. But, according to my co-worker they are a threat to win the NC. Lol.

They're a threat to lose a mid-tier bowl game every year.

 

[UNCPSUFAN]

Another mistake was the kick off to Breaston which started that final drive. The kick was perfect down in the corner but our coverage broke down allowing about a 50 yard return. IIRC, we had 200 yards of offense in the first half with little or nothing to show for it.

And, Jason Avant's size "16 shoe" was halfway out of bounds for all the millions of viewers to see when he made that catch on the last drive. But, the refs didn't see it.

That kick was not perfect. It was a short kick, fielded around the 35 IIRC, and then he got a nice gain on it. I remember sitting there not understanding why we didn't kick it deep and make them go the length of the field.

Remember it well and it was a huge mistake kicking to Steve Breaston. In that game he had killed us running back kick-offs giving Michigan short fields to work with in that game.

 

[pandaczar12]

Fine. I point to the ENTIRE rulebook. To be more explicit, my stance is:

(1) Every single word and sentence in the 2005 rulebook - none of them definitely say that the Avant play should have been ruled incomplete. None of them.

(2) Similarly - Every single word and sentence in the 2005 rulebook - none of them definitely say that the Avant play should have been ruled complete either. None of them.

Note that (1) and (2) above are unlike the situation from 2008 or after. For 2008 and after, Rule 7-3-6-XV explicitly says that the Avant play (had it happened in 2008 or later) should be ruled incomplete.

Well, I can say you’re half right!

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

That one was definitely a tough pill to swallow. I specifically remember a rotund Michigan “man” looking into the camera and saying “same Michigan and same Penn State”. I work with a native Michiganian (?), and to hear him tell it the all time series is 20-0. I have to remind him that there were stretches where we had winning streaks as well, and that we are on the dawn of another one. But, according to my co-worker they are a threat to win the NC. Lol.

Safe bet UM will better in 2018 and 2019 than they were in 2017. Of course, they had a great roster in 2016 and it fell apart (at least in part) because Harbaugh was acting like Harbaugh. That sideline penalty in Columbus was significant.

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

Agree completely. THE.WORST. LOSS.EVER. I’ll never forget where I was in NYC watching that game. Since then Michigan is by far my least favorite team in college football.

Not sure it’s the worst. But for me it was the most painful.

 

[AdvanSix]

All this is very interesting, but, really, all I care about at the moment is that our trajectory as a program, in both the short term and the long, seems to be significantly more positive than Michigan's.

During Harbaugh's 3 year tenure UM is 28-11. Admittedly 2017 was a disappointing season but UM was the 3rd youngest D1 team. PSU is 29-10 during same 3 year span with 1 BIG title. PSU is also 1-2 versus UM over this time period. If that's the "trajectory" you're talking about, so be it. Pretty confident that Harbaugh will be 3-1 vs CJF by November 4th, 2018. Time will tell.

 

[Option Bob]

During Harbaugh's 3 year tenure UM is 28-11. Admittedly 2017 was a disappointing season but UM was the 3rd youngest D1 team. PSU is 29-10 during same 3 year span with 1 BIG title. PSU is also 1-2 versus UM over this time period. If that's the "trajectory" you're talking about, so be it. Pretty confident that Harbaugh will be 3-1 vs CJF by November 4th, 2018. Time will tell.

More proof of the single most arrogant, obnoxious, illogical fanbase in all of sports: the University of Michigan. Where else would one claim that 11-2 is a worse "trajectory" than 8-5? It would actually be amusing if we didn't have to put with these trolls infecting our board.

 

[mcgunns]

Fine. I point to the ENTIRE rulebook. To be more explicit, my stance is:

(1) Every single word and sentence in the 2005 rulebook - none of them definitely say that the Avant play should have been ruled incomplete. None of them.

(2) Similarly - Every single word and sentence in the 2005 rulebook - none of them definitely say that the Avant play should have been ruled complete either. None of them.

Note that (1) and (2) above are unlike the situation from 2008 or after. For 2008 and after, Rule 7-3-6-XV explicitly says that the Avant play (had it happened in 2008 or later) should be ruled incomplete.

a player landing out of bounds could catch a ball in 2005? interesting lol

 

[mcgunns]

During Harbaugh's 3 year tenure UM is 28-11. Admittedly 2017 was a disappointing season but UM was the 3rd youngest D1 team. PSU is 29-10 during same 3 year span with 1 BIG title. PSU is also 1-2 versus UM over this time period. If that's the "trajectory" you're talking about, so be it. Pretty confident that Harbaugh will be 3-1 vs CJF by November 4th, 2018. Time will tell.

hahahahaha
did you ever consider that the first few seasons of franklin might deserve to be placed in some sort of context?
Franklin is special
Harbaugh is "special"

 

[odshowtime]

Pretty confident that Harbaugh will be 3-1 vs CJF by November 4th, 2018. Time will tell.

You're a loser.

 

[pandaczar12]

a player landing out of bounds could catch a ball in 2005? interesting lol

Thanks for dumbing it down for him.

 

[LionJim]

During Harbaugh's 3 year tenure UM is 28-11. Admittedly 2017 was a disappointing season but UM was the 3rd youngest D1 team. PSU is 29-10 during same 3 year span with 1 BIG title. PSU is also 1-2 versus UM over this time period. If that's the "trajectory" you're talking about, so be it. Pretty confident that Harbaugh will be 3-1 vs CJF by November 4th, 2018. Time will tell.

Don't talk to me. Talk to the Michigan fans who are saying the exact same thing. By the end of next year PSU should be ranked in the top ten for the third straight year. Franklin is clearly outrecruiting Harbaugh. We're looking at perennial top-ten teams, that's pretty much a given now. You probably thought Michigan would win this year too. Best for you to become resigned to being an also-ran.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

Much electronic ink spilled over a 3rd tier big 10 team. They need to get the gang (Parry, Honig, Witvoet and the boys) back together